New trains for East Midlands Franchise

[Bletchleyite]

But I have another reason for being against Norwich - Matlock, which is the problem of the long single track branch through the Peak District - it would only take a mild delay at (say) Ely for the service to miss its path up the ECML from Peterborough to Grantham... and then by the time it's got to Derby it'll be due to arrive in Matlock, so the service gets cancelled to ensure it's at the right time to leave Derby for Norwich... like the way that the TPE timetable changes last year saw many Scarborough services cancelled (or turned at Malton/ York).

Yes, this (or the LNR mess). I think the branch is best operated as a standalone Derby-Matlock service, or at a push from Nottingham as I think it is now?

 

[Speedbird96]

Yes, this (or the LNR mess). I think the branch is best operated as a standalone Derby-Matlock service, or at a push from Nottingham as I think it is now?

The Matlock services were extended to Newark Castle since the May 2015 timetable changes.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, this (or the LNR mess). I think the branch is best operated as a standalone Derby-Matlock service, or at a push from Nottingham as I think it is now?

A Derby-Matlock shuttle doesn't really work because the journey time is only just less than half an hour so a single unit struggles to maintain an hourly service. When it did that it was at rather random intervals. After running to Nottingham for a few years it's now been extended to Newark but in future the Newark leg will be attached to the Crewe service instead. Neither is likely to have many people going through Nottingham so the pairing is purely for operational convenience. However there are good reasons to connect both Matlock and Crewe with through services to Nottingham, which is a larger city with a better cited station than Derby.

I still think it would make more sense if they ran to Crewe instead to Matlock, That would bring much needed 2 trains per hour, one semi fast and one stopper plus giving decent connections to wales/manc airport etc from Nottingham and beyond, however not too sure on the pathing between Stoke and Crewe

The existing service has a very short turnaround at Crewe. Unless it can be re-timed in one direction or the other it is likely to suffer more performance penalty than it would be going to Matlock.

 

[OTRail]

It has been suggested they will have 6 months with EMR before they begin passenger service.
I wonder if Hull trains (given their experience with the 180s) will give them up sooner and stick with the HSTs until their 80x take over?

Wouldn’t be surprised if they do give them up as soon as the first 802s enter service in November - they’re reliability is pretty poor (even if they do meet disability regulations).

That’ll definitely please EMR as they’ll be able to get rid of the Grand Central HSTs earlier than planned.

 

[RealTrains07]

Can anyone deny reports that the 153s from WMR and GA are going to EMR?

Latest issue of rail and others have stated thats the plan

 

[NewSt]

Can anyone deny reports that the 153s from WMR and GA are going to EMR?

Latest issue of rail and others have stated thats the plan

Correct me if I'm wrong but I've heard that they'll only be keeping a few 153s to run in multiple with PRM compliant units until all Class 170s required are in service.

 

[RealTrains07]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I've heard that they'll only be keeping a few 153s to run in multiple with PRM compliant units until all Class 170s required are in service.

Thats what i know as well

But all the magazines are still reporting that the 153s are going EMR way?

 

[hooverboy]

Thats what i know as well

But all the magazines are still reporting that the 153s are going EMR way?

the EMR fleet of 153's is being reduced. (exchanged for 156's).
they've got 21 cl153 at the moment so I think they'll probably retain half a dozen or so for use as capacity busters for peak/seasonal traffic.

 

[OTRail]

Probably a bit off topic but the other day I saw 153334 out on the Snow Hill Lines with the Fort William depot sign on it - does this mean the WMR units could be going to Scotrail instead of EMR?

 

[Jozhua]

Yes, this (or the LNR mess). I think the branch is best operated as a standalone Derby-Matlock service, or at a push from Nottingham as I think it is now?

I think Nottingham is appropriate, I personally use the service from stations between Derby and Nottingham to travel to Matlock. I also know a lot of people from Matlock who regularly use the train to go to all the way to Nottingham.

I'm unaware of anyone who travels to Newark and to be honest, there has definitely been a reduction in reliability once they got combined due to level crossing failures, level crossing failures and the occasional level crossing failure.

So yes, I'd agree Matlock - Nottingham is suitable but onwards for that is somewhat unnecessary for the vast majority passengers looking for direct connections and causes quite a bit of unreliability.

 

[Class 170101]

I think Nottingham is appropriate, I personally use the service from stations between Derby and Nottingham to travel to Matlock. I also know a lot of people from Matlock who regularly use the train to go to all the way to Nottingham.

I'm unaware of anyone who travels to Newark and to be honest, there has definitely been a reduction in reliability once they got combined due to level crossing failures, level crossing failures and the occasional level crossing failure.

So yes, I'd agree Matlock - Nottingham is suitable but onwards for that is somewhat unnecessary for the vast majority passengers looking for direct connections and causes quite a bit of unreliability.

But is there not demand from Newark to Derby? It may also be unit related in that two terminating services costs an extra unit - something EM franchise doesn't have.

 

[43096]

Probably a bit off topic but the other day I saw 153334 out on the Snow Hill Lines with the Fort William depot sign on it - does this mean the WMR units could be going to Scotrail instead of EMR?

No, it means someone’s having a bit of a laugh.

 

[Jozhua]

But is there not demand from Newark to Derby? It may also be unit related in that two terminating services costs an extra unit - something EM franchise doesn't have.

Well maybe the current Newark setup is just fine then, isn't it every other hour anyways?

If someone considers fixing a level crossing or two, reliability should be fine.

 

[43055]

Well maybe the current Newark setup is just fine then, isn't it every other hour anyways?

If someone considers fixing a level crossing or two, reliability should be fine.

Its hourly for the full route Monday to Saturday. The stopping pattern changes between Nottingham and Newark with some stopping at all stations and some run semi fast.

 

[DDB]

I'm not sure if this is new information but I think it is the first time I have seen confirmation of when the rolling stock replacement program will be finished rather than started.
There is a leaflet entitled "EMR Customer Report" which states "Replacing all trains by December 2022"
The trains are described as

• Brand new bi-modes for Intercity services
• Comfortable electric trains to Luton Airport and Corby
• Faster, more modern diesel trains for all regional services

 

[HLE]

Probably a bit off topic but the other day I saw 153334 out on the Snow Hill Lines with the Fort William depot sign on it - does this mean the WMR units could be going to Scotrail instead of EMR?

Been on there for a while.

 

[jopsuk]

Modern Railways confirms that the plan is that the entire regional fleet will be Class 170s from September 2021, consisting of:
5x3 car 170s from Scotrail
23x2 car 170s from West Midlands (with 6 centre cars to storage)
10x2 car 170s converted from Southern Class 171/7 (Porterbrook fleet)
2x3 car 170s converted from Southern Class 171/8 (Porterbrook fleet, no news on the spare centre cars or the other 4 171/8)
4x3 car 170s (re) converted from Southern Class 171/2 and 171/4 (Eversholt Fleet)

Or as a summary:
33x 2 car
11x 3 car

In the interim, for the duration of 2020 they'll have the 9x 156s from Greater Anglia allowing all services to be 2 carriages or more.

 

[jw]

Modern Railways confirms that the plan is that the entire regional fleet will be Class 170s from September 2021, consisting of:
5x3 car 170s from Scotrail
23x2 car 170s from West Midlands (with 6 centre cars to storage)
10x2 car 170s converted from Southern Class 171/7 (Porterbrook fleet)
2x3 car 170s converted from Southern Class 171/8 (Porterbrook fleet, no news on the spare centre cars or the other 4 171/8)
4x3 car 170s (re) converted from Southern Class 171/2 and 171/4 (Eversholt Fleet)

Or as a summary:
33x 2 car
11x 3 car

In the interim, for the duration of 2020 they'll have the 9x 156s from Greater Anglia allowing all services to be 2 carriages or more.

Seems daft to be putting these centre cars into storage!

 

[Failed Unit]

Seems daft to be putting these centre cars into storage!

It does. I guess other turbo users will take them quickly but it is the 158s all over again.

 

[LowLevel]

They're in negotiations to take the 170/6 centre cars as well.

 

[Failed Unit]

I must admit it is hard to say if EMT need many centre cars or not.

route operated by 156 - 170 is a reduction in capacity. But the 3 cars planned should cover this. Skegness - Nottingham out of summer should be fine with a 2x car 170. Lincoln - Nottingham and Nottingham- Worksop need 3 and what is planned should cover.

the 153 routes are getting double improvement in frequency and length. I expect significant growth as a result but will be pleasantly surprised if they are constantly overcrowding 2 cars. Derby - Crewe could need some 3 cars as well if the route grows once people understand they can now physically board constantly.

 

[VT 390]

Does keeping centre cars add much to the operational costs? If not why not just leave them in as the extra capacity will probably be needed at some point in the future.

 

[edwin_m]

Does keeping centre cars add much to the operational costs? If not why not just leave them in as the extra capacity will probably be needed at some point in the future.

For a DMU going from 2-car to 3-car would increase the fuel, maintenance and variable track access costs by 50% but leave other costs (particularly staff) about the same. The difference would be less for EMUs if just adding an extra trailer car.

 

[Doomotron]

2x3 car 170s converted from Southern Class 171/8 (Porterbrook fleet, no news on the spare centre cars or the other 4 171/8)

Hold up, that seems odd. The 171/8s are four coaches, so that would mean 3 centre coaches would be removed from the trains. Unless Southern plans on increasing some /7s to 3 coaches for the Marshlink line, that would seem a waste. Surely 4-coach Turbostars would be better for long-distance Regional services?

 

[jopsuk]

I'm sure they've looked at the operational benefits and downsides of running a small number of four car units- and it's just two centre cars from the 171 fleet that will be spare, not 3. Clearly if the forum was running this we'd be transferring the whole 171 fleet, with all the current four car units intact and the West Midland 170s kept as 3 car, which would give:
29 x 2 car
12 x 3 car
8 x 4 car

 

[Southern Dvr]

Hold up, that seems odd. The 171/8s are four coaches, so that would mean 3 centre coaches would be removed from the trains. Unless Southern plans on increasing some /7s to 3 coaches for the Marshlink line, that would seem a waste. Surely 4-coach Turbostars would be better for long-distance Regional services?

the 171/7s are going from Marshlink!

Also this confirms that EMR will be devoid of 158s if i read correctly so safe bet that’s the 171s replacement stock down south.

 

[hwl]

the 171/7s are going from Marshlink!

Also this confirms that EMR will be devoid of 158s if i read correctly so safe bet that’s the 171s replacement stock down south.

Porterbrook have been in discussion for months as regards replacement stock for Marshlink so expect some thing second hand with battery added as the diesel word isn't being used...

 

[Southern Dvr]

Porterbrook have been in discussion for months as regards replacement stock for Marshlink so expect some thing second hand with battery added as the diesel word isn't being used...

however that would mean separate fleets for Marshlink and Uckfield.

 

[hwl]

Modern Railways confirms that the plan is that the entire regional fleet will be Class 170s from September 2021, consisting of:
5x3 car 170s from Scotrail
23x2 car 170s from West Midlands (with 6 centre cars to storage)
10x2 car 170s converted from Southern Class 171/7 (Porterbrook fleet)
2x3 car 170s converted from Southern Class 171/8 (Porterbrook fleet, no news on the spare centre cars or the other 4 171/8)
4x3 car 170s (re) converted from Southern Class 171/2 and 171/4 (Eversholt Fleet)

Or as a summary:
33x 2 car
11x 3 car

In the interim, for the duration of 2020 they'll have the 9x 156s from Greater Anglia allowing all services to be 2 carriages or more.

So that leaves
Southern with 4x 4car 171/8 + 2 Centre cars from the other 2 171/8s
And 6 Centre cars from WM, so 8 spare centre cars overall.

But the current Uckfield service is 5 diagrams so 4 units isn't going to cut it unless the peak extras become extra East Grinstead services with a shuttle on the Uckfield branch.

However there is some room to increase the unit length to 5 or 6 cars using 4 or 8 of the spare centre cars?

 

[hwl]

however that would mean separate fleets for Marshlink and Uckfield.

Given Uckfield is more challenging because of the tunnels clearance issue that may well be the case.

Porterbrook have the 319s/769s with many more coming free from Northern due to the WM 323s being taken on. They also have 23x 377/5 and 2x 377/1 on sublease from GTR with SE and 37x 350/2 from WM (with a battery flex trial conversion being done).
Eversholt have the 376s potential spare from SE (if everything had gone ahead.)
Hence given PB are apparently in the running there are many possibilities (also worth considering if there might be some alignment with SN 313 replacement that would allow Ashford - Brighton etc to run again.)